Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

Since we had a major wagon on a mod-confirmed town player, I will focus on what happened with the Nat lynch.

The basic information:

On the actual lynch wagon: {Axelrod, Mizzy, Machiavellian-Mafia, ThAdmiral, destructor}
Willing to vote Nat but preferred someone else: {Urza, roflcopter}
Not willing to vote Nat: {Batt, CarnCarn}
Unknown stance on Nat: {CR, ortolan}

For now I will ignore the last group because of their claims. I also won't include roflcopter since he's dead and myself since I know I am town. Here's about the rest:

Axelrod
Reasoning behind voting Nat: Both predecessor and Nat were useless.
Overall game evaluation: Slightly protown read. Has done nothing scummy and made some legitimate cases and contributions.
Conclusion: Not even close to being a scum suspect.

Mizzy
Reasoning behind voting Nat: Impending deadline, less-than-stellar replacing in, and subsequent disappearance
Overall evaluation: Neutral read. On the outside she looks pretty good, but on the inside I have a bad gut feeling about her.
Conclusion: Not a scum suspect.

ThAdmiral
Reasoning behind voting Nat: His rofl vote was not useful, prefers Nat over CR
Overall evaluation: Scum read. Not helpful for a big chunk of Day 1. Has 6 instances of voting someone and then immediately unvoting 1 or 2 posts later. Proactive in nightkill speculation.
Conclusion: Top scum suspect

destructor
Reasoning behind voting Nat: More like a policy vote, the least pro-town lynch candidate, wanted vote to be useful at deadline.
Overall evaluation: Pretty much the same as Axelrod.
Conclusion: Not even close to being a scum suspect.

Urza
Reasoning behind willingness to vote Nat: Uriel was on his shit list
Overall evaluation: Predecessor was my #1 suspect. Urza is a much better improvement, but he hasn’t done enough to cancel out Caboose.
Conclusion: Still a scum suspect

Batt
Reasoning behind not willing to vote Nat: Nat is up to par with general playstyle.
Overall evaluation: Neutral read. Initially not helpful but has significantly improved in latter part of D1.
Conclusion: Not a scum suspect

CarnCarn
Reasoning behind not willing to vote Nat: Nat is being Nat. Agreed with one of the posts.
Overall evaluation: Neutral read. Nothing he has done is pushing me towards a scum read or a protown read.
Conclusion: Not a scum suspect

So I currently like ThAdmiral the most, with Urza being second.

Vote: ThAdmiral
FoS: Urza

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

MM, you said you didn't find the reasons I gave for voting CC yesterday very strong. Do you still feel the same way? Do you the conclusions I came to regarding the end of Day 1 are reasonable?

Yes because I still see the context/circumstances of CC's actions to be reasonable.
Yes, I'm leaning towards town for both CR and ort, and I see Urza as the most likely scum on the CR wagon.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

EDWOP:

The quote above was supposed to be destructor's.

[petroleumjelly]

Day Two Vote Count: #2

2 CarnCarn (destructor, Urzassedatives)
1 Mizzy (ortolan)
1 ThAdmiral (Machiavellian-Mafia)
1 Urzassedatives (CarnCarn)

With

10

alive, it takes

6

to lynch, and

4

to lynch at deadline! Deadline is January 8, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 5 – Axelrod, Battousai, ClockworkRuse, Mizzy, ThAdmiral

Fixed.

[ThAdmiral]

I don't like voting for someone for being "anti-town" in the way you've done here. It implies you don't think they are scum but will vote for them anyway. This is what I was getting at- if you thought Ramus was scum, then you should have voted Axelrod. If you didn't think Ramus was scum, but simply a bad townie, you shouldn't have been voting for him to begin with. Townies are still townies nonetheless.

Scum are anti-town, are they not? It implies that all I knew about him for sure was that his play was anti-town. I can't know whether or not the person I suspect is scum, so I go with the basics first. And to me, scum are bad "townies." They try to appear as town but aren't actually pro-town. Your disagreement with my playstyle does not make me scummy.

So your entire case now stands on nothing but your dislike about my playstyle, which isn't actually scummy, you just don't agree with it.

But if that's your playstyle I think that makes

you

a "bad townie".
Also you're sort of strawmanning his case against you.

Since we had a major wagon on a mod-confirmed town player, I will focus on what happened with the Nat lynch.

The basic information:

On the actual lynch wagon: {Axelrod, Mizzy, Machiavellian-Mafia, ThAdmiral, destructor}
Willing to vote Nat but preferred someone else: {Urza, roflcopter}
Not willing to vote Nat: {Batt, CarnCarn}
Unknown stance on Nat: {CR, ortolan}

For now I will ignore the last group because of their claims. I also won't include roflcopter since he's dead and myself since I know I am town.

Something strikes me as slightly inconsistent here. It seems from your last sentence that you are basically accepting cr as town but you are only looking at peoples reactions to the nati wagon.
I think you should take into account how people reacted to both wagons as it would make for more thorough analysis.

[ThAdmiral]

@ mm: it also seems like you did a lot of analysis which didn't actually factor in to your final suspicions.
A way to provide more merit to what is essentially not a very solid vote?

mod - I unvoted destructor

Mod edit: I swear you people must be playing "hide the votes" or something! Vote count fixed, and thank you for promptly pointing out the mistake.

[CarnCarn]

My vote on you was simply to make you react to me. The fact that you're antsy about it strikes me as odd though. In my experience town players tend to shrug off unexplained and unfollowed up votes on them. I know if someone just posts "vote: shea" I'm more likely to ignore it than anything else. Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something. In fact, that's exactly how your reaction reads to me, as a player who is hoping that a cop doesn't have a guilty on them. The purpose of the vote was to see how you reacted, and I really don't like what I see, so I'm keeping it.

I don't see why anyone would ignore a vote against them, town or scum. Not getting lynched is usually the best way to fulfill your wincon regardless of alignment, and every vote counts.
If you are breadcrumbing that you're a cop and actually have a guilty on me, then your sanity is in question. It's also a possible scum tactic that could be used to lynch someone they think is a real cop/doc, etc. (testing the cop).
Also, from what I've seen, a cop with a guilty doesn't just cast out an unexplained vote on his investigation target, so, even if I were scum, that thought wouldn't have crossed my mind.

[Urzassedatives]

My vote on you was simply to make you react to me. The fact that you're antsy about it strikes me as odd though. In my experience town players tend to shrug off unexplained and unfollowed up votes on them. I know if someone just posts "vote: shea" I'm more likely to ignore it than anything else. Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something. In fact, that's exactly how your reaction reads to me, as a player who is hoping that a cop doesn't have a guilty on them. The purpose of the vote was to see how you reacted, and I really don't like what I see, so I'm keeping it.

I don't see why anyone would ignore a vote against them, town or scum. Not getting lynched is usually the best way to fulfill your wincon regardless of alignment, and every vote counts.
If you are breadcrumbing that you're a cop and actually have a guilty on me, then your sanity is in question. It's also a possible scum tactic that could be used to lynch someone they think is a real cop/doc, etc. (testing the cop).
Also, from what I've seen, a cop with a guilty doesn't just cast out an unexplained vote on his investigation target, so, even if I were scum, that thought wouldn't have crossed my mind.

1) You might be right that a townie might not ignore the vote completely, but generally you would expect to hear a "Why are you voting for me?" rather than a "Urza voted for me without giving reasoning and I found his predecessor scummy so vote: urza" The former is a curious townie reaction, the latter is antsy scum.

2) I am making no sort of role claim. My statement in no way implicated that I was. Your further defense against a possible cop guilty when I never claimed to have a guilty on you is further evidence of scum antsyness.

3) Huh? Explain the comment about "it could be a possible scum tactic." I don't really understand what you're saying.

4) Actually, that is a pretty generally accepted way to breadcrumb a cop investigation early in the game, when it's not worth claiming yet. That way if the cop turns up dead, the town can look back and say "hey look, he voted X with no explanation and didn;t move his vote...In fact, it's really the quintessential way to bread crumb a guilty in the early game... All that aside, my argument isn't even contingent on whether or not cops WOULD breadcrumb in that way. My point is that a town reaction to an unexplained vote is dismissal or curiosity. A scum reaction is fear and attack. You didn;t do the first.

5) The attack aside, what do you think about the legitimacy of my vote? Do you still think that it's suspicious that I placed it? If so, why? If not, then why haven't you unvoted me?

[CarnCarn]

1) You might be right that a townie might not ignore the vote completely, but generally you would expect to hear a "Why are you voting for me?" rather than a "Urza voted for me without giving reasoning and I found his predecessor scummy so vote: urza" The former is a curious townie reaction, the latter is antsy scum.

The question is implied with my vote, and you haven't fully explained it. You said you were looking for a reaction. But why did you pick me? And I voted you because I found Caboose scummy; your unexplained vote was puzzling, but not scummy. Here is my post where I voted you:

Not understanding the votes on me. Urza is understandably going through a rough time, but he gave no reasoning for his vote and destructor is voting me for opportunistic FoSing of roflcopter D1, after I gave a FoS for the same reason to Axelrod. Also sees my vote for Caboose as scummy, even after I said Caboose was the scummiest, and at the end of the day I would have preferred a Caboose/Urza lynch to a CR one. Given ort's claim and explanation for his unvote, I think Urza is still the most suspicious to me.

I start off saying I don't understand the basis for the two votes against me, and end by saying why I don't find ortolan, who I was voting at the time, was no longer scummy to me, and that I still find you/Caboose most suspicious. Your vote today wasn't the reason for the vote.

2) I am making no sort of role claim. My statement in no way implicated that I was. Your further defense against a possible cop guilty when I never claimed to have a guilty on you is further evidence of scum antsyness.

You suggested that I am afraid that someone has a guilty on me (you, for your vote). That's not a role claim, but it's possible breadcrumbing and only I addressed your own hypothetical situation, so I'm not sure why you think that is evidence of "scum antsyness."

3) Huh? Explain the comment about "it could be a possible scum tactic." I don't really understand what you're saying.

Not the breadcrumbing, I meant scum actually fake-claiming guilty on someone they strongly believe is a cop/doc. Note: I don't think you are an actual cop, or that you were really breadcrumbing, as suggested by what I said in my last paragraph.

4) Actually, that is a pretty generally accepted way to breadcrumb a cop investigation early in the game, when it's not worth claiming yet. That way if the cop turns up dead, the town can look back and say "hey look, he voted X with no explanation and didn;t move his vote...In fact, it's really the quintessential way to bread crumb a guilty in the early game... All that aside, my argument isn't even contingent on whether or not cops WOULD breadcrumb in that way. My point is that a town reaction to an unexplained vote is dismissal or curiosity. A scum reaction is fear and attack. You didn;t do the first.

Maybe, but I've seen more non-cops throw out unexplained votes than cops to make me automatically think it's a "generally accepted" way for cop to breadcrumb.

5) The attack aside, what do you think about the legitimacy of my vote? Do you still think that it's suspicious that I placed it? If so, why? If not, then why haven't you unvoted me?

If you were fishing for a reaction, you got one. Don't know why you picked me, though, and I await the explanation. For your second question: I NEVER thought it was suspicious that you placed it. For the third point, I haven't unvoted yet because I think Caboose has been most scummy for a while now. That said, I want to go back and take another look at his play and yours again, and try to figure out why so many people are taking ort's claim to means CR is town, or destructor's logic that the Nat lynch suggests CR is more town now. Basically, what I'm saying is my vote wasn't meant to be OMGUS for your vote on me today, and that I now need to refresh my thinking on this game in light of your recent posts, and pending your response to this one.

[ortolan]

Ort, what about your flavor on CR makes/made you think he is town?

Well, my role description mentions that any other day I would be eking a living with Djali, but today more important events are afoot. I admit in retrospect this alone wasn't the best reason for unvoting- at the time it was as much of an impulse as anything else. However, in light of e.g.:

CR: You could have voted Nat yesterday so that you could avoid getting lynched. Why didn't you do that?

I find it unlikely that he, as scum would take the lynch without voting for someone he knew to be town. So I think my unvote has been somewhat vindicated since.

You have missed parts and tried to gracefully side-step the entire unjustification of your gripe about my suspicion on you.

Please tell me what I have sidestepped. I found inconsistencies in your play and pointed them out to you.

Scum are anti-town, are they not? It implies that all I knew about him for sure was that his play was anti-town. I can't know whether or not the person I suspect is scum, so I go with the basics first. And to me, scum are bad "townies." They try to appear as town but aren't actually pro-town. Your disagreement with my playstyle does not make me scummy.

I don't understand this. Clearly there is a distinction between bad townies and scum players. If townies get lynched, regardless of whether they are "bad" townies or not, you are bringing the scum one step closer to victory. You seem to be saying you voted for Ramus even though you didn't actually think he was scum, merely "anti town" (which you've clearly distinguished from being "scummy"). I don't see how this is pro-town (and here I don't retain your distinction, because I think by making this "anti-town" move, you _are_ indeed more likely to be scummy).

Since we had a major wagon on a mod-confirmed town player

Not guaranteed to be true actually. Did you forget there's a traitor in this game?

[Mizzy]

You have missed parts and tried to gracefully side-step the entire unjustification of your gripe about my suspicion on you.

Please tell me what I have sidestepped. I found inconsistencies in your play and pointed them out to you.

Why are you asking me to tell you what I already have? See my above quote and read it carefully.

As your your inconsistencies, I have answered your comments on them and shown that most of them are misunderstandings or misrepresentations. And yet you continue to act like your case is still stable and valid. Why?

[ClockworkRuse]

Sorry for the delay in posting, holidays are eating up my time.

Expect a post about this Mizzy/Ort back and forth by... Friday?

[Battousai]

Starting page 18. I'll be using a point system to express how scummy any individual post is to me. Any positive number leans the player towards being a townie, a negative leans them to being scum.

Post 426:

Don't like this post at all. By saying me or CR could make the difference strikes me as if he's trying to shift the blame for a mislynch onto us (mostly me)because we weren't voting at the time and we COULD have voted to save Nat. His post was also at the end of the day, which I think he could have thought the final vote count would be soon and I wouldn't have gotten on. From this Destructor and CR could be a scum team, or Destructor just prefered a Nat lynch due to their being less information gotten from it.

-5

Post 427:

CR basically claims mason

Elaborate on your role please, do you turn up scum when investigated, killed, or both/neither?

. More to add to this once CR answers

Post 428:

Ort hammers Nat giving no explanation. He posted this at the end of the RL day (here at least) and as close to deadline as possible. Unless Ort planned on being killed that night, he should have expected to give a reason to this. I find it strange that he would want to wait until the next game day to explain and have people look towards him.

0

Post 431:

CarnCarn votes Ort for not providing a reason for the hammering unvote and also not suspecting Nat (the person hammered). Feels like CC is focusing on just the final two people on the Nat wagon and potentionally trying to get others to look at them for the blame. While I do agree that the destructor vote was suspicious, CC only FOS him and voted Ort. I disagree with the vote.

-1

Post 435:

Ort explains the unvote. I don't understand how you two would relate and you coming up with CR being town based on this relationship alone. Nothing in CR's claim strikes me as has to be town. It's quite possible scum CR got a fake claim as that, but if you're town I believe CR did not make up that claim, but instead is telling the truth or got a fakeclaim.

-2

Post 436:

I disagree with the post. It seems Mizzy didn't think Ort claiming he believed CR's claim to be the explanation to the Unvote. I think it was a misunderstanding here.

0

Post 438:

ThAdmiral talks about the night. Roflcopter was killed to cause confusion I believe, thus ThAdmiral focusing his entire post on that and not about the wagon on Nat or the unvotes at the end of the day strikes me as him wanting the town to focus on the NK and let the scum's plan of confusion take effect.

-5

Post 439:

This is where Mizzy and Ort seem to take off on a mistake. Mizzy didn't think Ort's post 435 was his explanation for his hammering unvote or as the explanation to all the people focusing on him for it. Ort thought Mizzy didn't make a mistake and was confused to why Mizzy would IGMEOY for unvoting someone he felt was a townie. At this point I believe Ort and Mizzy think the other is scum and any reread they do to the other is probably read already thinking the other is scum, so I'll keep that in mind later for certain posts.

0

This is all I'm able to get to, as I have other things I must do today. I promise to at least finish page 18 and start on 19 by the end of the 26th.

[ClockworkRuse]

Well, seeing as people started to claim before even talking about a system... let's just do this popcorn style, eh?

Goat, who do you want to claim?

[Urzassedatives]

MM, I think it might be worthwhile to include yourself and Rofl in your analysis as a test of your system. You say you're town and ROFL is now confirmed town, which means if you expect scum to react in a certain way, you'd expect town NOT to act in that way. By comparing the town reactions to the expected scum reactions, you would be able to discern if your system holds any merit.

CR: Wait wait wait...Who said anything about a mass claim? I am firmly opposed to a mass claim at this time.

[ClockworkRuse]

....

Wow. Wrong game.

[ClockworkRuse]

That should have been in Scum of the Seas. I guess I thought I was there. /facepalm

I am not suggesting a mass claim, that was just a mistake.

[Battousai]

Post 427:

CR basically claims mason

Elaborate on your role please, do you turn up scum when investigated, killed, or both/neither?

. More to add to this once CR answers

CR: Could you please answer this, as it appears a few other people have made posts that require me to have an answer to that in order for me to respond to?

[ClockworkRuse]

Post 427:

CR basically claims mason

Elaborate on your role please, do you turn up scum when investigated, killed, or both/neither?

. More to add to this once CR answers

CR: Could you please answer this, as it appears a few other people have made posts that require me to have an answer to that in order for me to respond to?

I didn't claim mason. If you look at my role, I have no powers at all.

My role PM says I'm a townie, like I said.

I'm not exactly sure where you got Mason from.

[ortolan]

He obviously means "miller". I meant to ask you about that also but I'd forgotten. If the town believes you are possessed by the devil does that mean you flip guilty to cop investigations?

Mizzy- leaving aside the whole suspecting me for unvoting CR thing, there are still aspects of your play I don't understand, would you please answer the following questions:

1)

I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

What, exactly, did you mean by this?

2) Do you believe that on day one, CR was being consistently "intelligent and very perceptive" when he spent most of the day attacking me, and subsequently admitted he had been tunneling?

3) Theoretically, if you were a cop, had investigated someone and knew them to be innocent, but found their play extremely unhelpful to town, would you still call for them to be lynched?

[Mizzy]

1)

I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

What, exactly, did you mean by this?

Exactly what I said. It feels like you want to put yourself on a pedestal for your actions that prevented one lynch and caused another, and while you may have done a good thing, I really hate it when people have to get all high and mighty about it.

2) Do you believe that on day one, CR was being consistently "intelligent and very perceptive" when he spent most of the day attacking me, and subsequently admitted he had been tunneling?

I believe that most of what he said and how he said it was intelligent and perceptive, yes. I didn't say he was perfect, and I didn't always agree with him, but I admire(d) his playstyle and helpful thoughts.

3) Theoretically, if you were a cop, had investigated someone and knew them to be innocent, but found their play extremely unhelpful to town, would you still call for them to be lynched?

It depends on the game. If I didn't know my own sanity, then yes, I might. If there was a traitor and I knew it, then I might. If it were someone who was severely hampering a potential town-win, then yes, I might. There are circumstances in which I would try and get some one lynched in your scenario, but

never

would I lie to make that happen. Does that make sense?

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

Something strikes me as slightly inconsistent here. It seems from your last sentence that you are basically accepting cr as town but you are only looking at peoples reactions to the nati wagon.
I think you should take into account how people reacted to both wagons as it would make for more thorough analysis.

I think there's a good chance that CR town, but that cannot compare with the mod-confirmed town status of Nat.

@ mm: it also seems like you did a lot of analysis which didn't actually factor in to your final suspicions.
A way to provide more merit to what is essentially not a very solid vote?

Can you clarify what you mean and/or give examples?

Not guaranteed to be true actually. Did you forget there's a traitor in this game?

Yes I know there's a traitor, but since scum doesn't know who the traitor is and there's no confirmed scum to look for connections, in my eyes it's safe to mark Nat and rofl as town for the time being.

MM, I think it might be worthwhile to include yourself and Rofl in your analysis as a test of your system. You say you're town and ROFL is now confirmed town, which means if you expect scum to react in a certain way, you'd expect town NOT to act in that way. By comparing the town reactions to the expected scum reactions, you would be able to discern if your system holds any merit.

Valid point, I'll see how it turns out in my next post.

[Battousai]

He obviously means "miller".

Yes, there are 4 roles I typically switch by accident. Miller/Mason and Watcher/Tracker. I'll wait for you to answer Ort's question before continuing post analysis.

[ClockworkRuse]

He obviously means "miller". I meant to ask you about that also but I'd forgotten. If the town believes you are possessed by the devil does that mean you flip guilty to cop investigations?

Mizzy- leaving aside the whole suspecting me for unvoting CR thing, there are still aspects of your play I don't understand, would you please answer the following questions:

1)

I also don't credit you alone with saving CR so stop trying to look like a hero.

What, exactly, did you mean by this?

2) Do you believe that on day one, CR was being consistently "intelligent and very perceptive" when he spent most of the day attacking me, and subsequently admitted he had been tunneling?

3) Theoretically, if you were a cop, had investigated someone and knew them to be innocent, but found their play extremely unhelpful to town, would you still call for them to be lynched?

My role PM doesn't tell me if I flip town or scum when investigated. It tells me I am a townie, obviously, but nothing about that.

[ortolan]

I am La Esmerelda's goat's Djali. Although the town believes I am possessed by the Devil, I am sided with you all. I have no powers, which is good.

Do you not think "the town believes I am possessed by the Devil" might be interpreted as hinting you are a miller?